PDA

View Full Version : I Did Aqueduct Fall Meet Ratings


JohnGalt1
12-06-2017, 02:55 PM
Whenever there is a new track or new track surface, I write down every race's time and average them to get a figure I can use to compare with the pars from other tracks when I handicap.

I buy the Cynthia par books which don't ship till about March so I want to get preliminary ratings to use until then.

I did this when California went from dirt to poly and pro-ride, and back again, and Arlington when they went from dirt to poly, since I bet there and bet on horses from there.

My ratings were surprisingly close to the figures when I receive the par book.

I looked at all races from 11/3 to 12/3/17. I ignored all off track dirt and turf races, and all maiden claimers.

I use the $10k open claiming pars for all tracks. This has worked for me. I think it was Quinn who suggested doing this.

I use an average of 2016 and 2015 pars and give more weight to the most recent year. Example 2016 par is 1:10 and 2015 par is 1:11, I rate that rack 1:10.2

I made a universal comparison chart for easy track to track comparison.

A 90 is 58.1 @5f, 104.3 @5.5, 1:11.0 @6, 1:37.0 @mile, 1:43.2 @ 1 1/16, and 1:50.1 @1 1/8. I've left off some of the distances. The 6.2 furlong differences are from Satin's Chart.

********

I used the charts from the DRF website. They also post the track variants, for what they are worth, since it's two new tracks

For what they are worth, the dirt variant averaged 17 and route averaged 21. I do not use variants on turf races unless an off turf for tack that move the rails in and out, which does effect these ratings.

The raw speeds for 33 6f races was 112.1 an 84 on my chart.

Twenty two 6 1/2 f races averaged 1:19.0 an 83.

Ten 7f races averaged 1:25.1 an 84.

Twenty 6 mile races averaged 1:38.1 an 84.

Four 1 1/18 were 1:53.0 a 76.

The one 1 3/16 race was 200.1 a 76

TURF----

The DRF charts don't specify inner or outer turf course, so 21 6f averaged 1:09.0 a 100.

Twenty six mile races averaged 1:37.4 or 86.

Twenty six 1 1/16 races averaged 1:43.3 an 89.

Four 1/18 races averaged 1:51.0 an 86.

++++++

To compare--
Fall sprints-----------------84
Old outer track I rated----88
Old inner track-------------85

Fall routes------------8/86 78, adding two ticks from 21 variant.
Old outer track-------8/85 79
Old inner track----------79 8/81

Turf sprints---------------100
Belmont turf sprints-----100
Saratoga turf sprints------98

Turf routes-----------------86 8.5/89
Old turf routes-------------82

########

In summary, the new dirt sprints are similar to old inner track sprints.

The new routes are similar to the old outer track routes.

The turf sprints are comparable to Belmont and Saratoga.

The new turf routes are faster

I'm curious to see how close these are the par book next year.

I hope you find this helpful.

Tom
12-06-2017, 03:24 PM
Thanks for sharing.

The BRIS charts just say Turf for the original turf course, the now "inner" turf, and specify OUTER for the new course.

Hope that helps.

cj
12-06-2017, 11:42 PM
I'd be careful with anything from the new "outer" turf course. They didn't run many races, and those they did run were done on with four different rail settings (0, 12, 24, 36).

The turf sprints are all on the new course. They can't run 6f on the old one. The 9.5 furlong races were run on the new course.

The other distances (8, 8.5, and 9f) were run on both courses.

Whosonfirst
12-07-2017, 06:47 AM
Whenever there is a new track or new track surface, I write down every race's time and average them to get a figure I can use to compare with the pars from other tracks when I handicap.

I buy the Cynthia par books which don't ship till about March so I want to get preliminary ratings to use until then.

I did this when California went from dirt to poly and pro-ride, and back again, and Arlington when they went from dirt to poly, since I bet there and bet on horses from there.

My ratings were surprisingly close to the figures when I receive the par book.

I looked at all races from 11/3 to 12/3/17. I ignored all off track dirt and turf races, and all maiden claimers.

I use the $10k open claiming pars for all tracks. This has worked for me. I think it was Quinn who suggested doing this.

I use an average of 2016 and 2015 pars and give more weight to the most recent year. Example 2016 par is 1:10 and 2015 par is 1:11, I rate that rack 1:10.2

I made a universal comparison chart for easy track to track comparison.

A 90 is 58.1 @5f, 104.3 @5.5, 1:11.0 @6, 1:37.0 @mile, 1:43.2 @ 1 1/16, and 1:50.1 @1 1/8. I've left off some of the distances. The 6.2 furlong differences are from Satin's Chart.

********

I used the charts from the DRF website. They also post the track variants, for what they are worth, since it's two new tracks

For what they are worth, the dirt variant averaged 17 and route averaged 21. I do not use variants on turf races unless an off turf for tack that move the rails in and out, which does effect these ratings.

The raw speeds for 33 6f races was 112.1 an 84 on my chart.

Twenty two 6 1/2 f races averaged 1:19.0 an 83.

Ten 7f races averaged 1:25.1 an 84.

Twenty 6 mile races averaged 1:38.1 an 84.

Four 1 1/18 were 1:53.0 a 76.

The one 1 3/16 race was 200.1 a 76

TURF----

The DRF charts don't specify inner or outer turf course, so 21 6f averaged 1:09.0 a 100.

Twenty six mile races averaged 1:37.4 or 86.

Twenty six 1 1/16 races averaged 1:43.3 an 89.

Four 1/18 races averaged 1:51.0 an 86.

++++++

To compare--
Fall sprints-----------------84
Old outer track I rated----88
Old inner track-------------85

Fall routes------------8/86 78, adding two ticks from 21 variant.
Old outer track-------8/85 79
Old inner track----------79 8/81

Turf sprints---------------100
Belmont turf sprints-----100
Saratoga turf sprints------98

Turf routes-----------------86 8.5/89
Old turf routes-------------82

########

In summary, the new dirt sprints are similar to old inner track sprints.

The new routes are similar to the old outer track routes.

The turf sprints are comparable to Belmont and Saratoga.

The new turf routes are faster

I'm curious to see how close these are the par book next year.

I hope you find this helpful.
John, thanks for sharing. Are the speed ratings your own, or Beyers?

JohnGalt1
12-07-2017, 03:06 PM
They are my own, and used only for track to track comparison.

I printed charts to make track to track, distance to distance comparisons easier.

I make Hambleton pace figures from Sartin's book with pen and paper.

As an example-----

Belmont I have routes 88, Fairgrounds 76.

It's quick and easy for me to convert from one to the other.

A race a Belmont of 1:11 and 1:35.

The Hambleton figs I make would look like 90/95/185.

If that Belmont horse went to Fairgrounds it would be 83/90/173.

Gulfstream's mile is 88, 1 1/16 is 82 and 9f is 85.

So that Belmont race would be equal to GP's mile, 6 ticks slower at 8.5f (87/92/179) and 3 ticks slower at 9f (88/94/182).

Quick and easy.

And since no rating is perfect I allow a 5 tick difference in routes and 3 ticks in sprints as being close.